ACTA BENEDICTI PP. XVI

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale632

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 633

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale634

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 635

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale636

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 637

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale638

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 639

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale640

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 641

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale642

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 643

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale644

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 645

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale646

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 647

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale648

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 649

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale650

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 651

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale652

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 653

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale654

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 655

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale656

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 657

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale658

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 659

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale660

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 661

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale662

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 663

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale664

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 665

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale666

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 667

 werden und nicht zu viele einseitige Polemiken hervorzurufen. Ich würde

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 669

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale670

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 671

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale672

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 673

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale674

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 675

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale676

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 677

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale678

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 679

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale680

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 681

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale682

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 683

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale684

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 685

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale686

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 687

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale688

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 689

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale690

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 691

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale692

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 693

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale694

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 695

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale696

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 697

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale698

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 699

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale700

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 701

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale702

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 703

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale704

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 705

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale706

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 707

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale708

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 709

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale710

 Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 711

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale712

 Congregatio pro Episcopis 713

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale714

 Diarium Romanae Curiae 715

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale716

 Diarium Romanae Curiae 717

 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale718

Acta Benedicti Pp. XVI 693

having to consult the Holy See, every Bishop, is free to apply the penal

measures of canon law to offending priests, and has never been impeded

under canon law from reporting cases of abuse to the civil authorities.

The question of cooperation with the civil authorities was clarified by the

then Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Cardinal Darı́o Castrillón

Hoyos, in his meeting with the Irish Bishops at Rosses Point, County Sligo

(Ireland), on 12 November 1998, when he unequivocally stated: "I also wish

to say with great clarity that the Church, especially through its Pastors

(Bishops), should not in any way put an obstacle in the legitimate path of civil

justice, when such is initiated by those who have such rights, while at the same

time, she should move forward with her own canonical procedures, in truth,

justice and charity towards all." In this way, the Cardinal drew attention to

the fact that canon law and civil law, while being two distinct systems, with

distinct areas of application and competence, are not in competition and can

operate in parallel. This basic principle has been repeated on several occa-

sions in the Holy See's subsequent interventions on this matter, including the

Pope's Letter to the Catholics of Ireland (No. 11) and the Circular Letter issued

by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 3 May 2011, which,

in addition, explicitly addresses the question of reporting requirements

(see below).

It should be noted that, at the time, not only the Church in Ireland but

also the State was engaged in efforts to improve its response to the problem

of child sexual abuse. In 1996, apart from cases relating to misprision of

felony, the reporting of incidents of child sexual abuse to either the relevant

health board or the Irish police was not mandatory. Furthermore, misprision

of felony was removed from the Irish Statute Book by the Criminal Justice

Act of 1997.

The Holy See is aware that public consultations about placing a legal

obligation on designated professionals to report known or suspected abuse

to the authorities took place in Ireland in 1996 following the publication of

the document Putting Children First at the request of the then Minister

of State at the Departments of Health, Education and Justice, Mr Austin

Currie. At that time, while some Church-related bodies, such as the above-

mentioned Advisory Committee, were broadly favourable to the introduction

of mandatory reporting, other Church-related bodies and professional groups

in civil society, including representatives of the medical, social service, edu-

cational and legal areas, expressed reservations or in some cases were opposed